(Original post by Mrm.)
This is one of the few true and accurate posts in this thread.
It is all too easy to look back on events of 60 years ago and isolate the 2 bombs and say "disgraceful, unjustified, never should have happened"
The reality is that without an in-depth knowledge of the conflict then I'm afraid that many posts here sound like immature rhetoric.
To fully understand the reasons for the actions taken takes hours of reading, research and understanding.
If you want to know more then research

As it happens I would consider myself to be something of a pacifist, and would never dream of saying that the bombs or any of the other horrific aspects of WWII ( or indeed other conflicts) sit comfortably with me; but that isn't the point. There were reasons as to why decisions were made, they were not taken light heartedly; war is a very dirty business.

The Holocaust was undoubtedly worst because of the sheer scale of it however the atomic bombs could have been avoided. Japan were very close to surrendering and it is considered that the invasion of Japan would never have happened even if the bombs hadnt been dropped. They were essentially not the start of the cold war so the reasoning behind their use provided by american sources is diabolical and false. Neither acts were necessary.

(Original post by graham11238)
It is illogical to say that just becasue they dropped bombs on us excuses us to do the same, the idea of acting with morality is the basis of society. It is like saying "because there are people who steal, it won't matter if i do the same"

Also how was it tactical to attack an all civilian city, i could better understand an attack on a military base, trading port, something which would demonstrate the power as well as cripple army. Attacking innocent civilians seems a common theme between the holocaust and these bombings regardless of numbers. I'm not trying to rank them in order of severity, rather ask why America is allowed to be excused these crimes and those who made and delivered the bombs made out to be heroes. Whereas the germans are repeatedly depicted as evil.

Going after a military target would not have achieved the desired affect.

Destroying civilian targets is a perfectly tactical way to make your enemy realise what they have to lose. Plus if the nation loses the support of their people, they cannot possibly continue to fight.

Of course it's not right but what in war is? Maybe you should be asking why America was even supporting the war prior to their entrance? Is that not bad, making a profit off of other people's suffering?

Of course it's not right to say "they stole so I will too", but some people can't be reasoned with, for example a fanatical enemy who would quite happily die for their cause.

When it comes down to it, it was a tactical option that quite clearly worked as Japan then surrendered. If you want to know why this is tactical, read Sun Tzu. If this doesn't convince you, go research great wars and battles, and realise that his teachings essentially predict the victor in all of them.

Would you pull the trigger on one person, to allow another 100 to live?

(Original post by mandapop)
Japan were very close to surrendering and it is considered that the invasion of Japan would never have happened even if the bombs hadnt been dropped.

Considered by whom?

What you say above does not give the true story at all.
The only surrender that america and the rest of the allies were prepared to accept was unconditional surrender; and that was not going to happen. i.e. no acceptable surrender had been offered.
You must also remember that the option for surrender was again offered after the dropping of the first device.
Historically it is just as well the surrender did occur after the second device, as the threat of further bombings was in fact hollow at this time.... Only the 2 devices were in fact ready for deployment ....

(Original post by Fusilero)
Not with the threat of the bomb, no. But they were more or less demanding the surrender of the Japanese people all along.

Unless I am mistaken, the warning was issued after the first bomb had been dropped.
It wasn't a case of the American military demanding the surrender of the Japanese people; this offer had already been made... The issue was that the military wanted an unconditional surrender and this was not offered... the sticking point was largely to do with what would happen to the emperor himself..

Its a bit too late for me to give a proper answer to this important question, but I think that the Hiroshima bomb ONLY was justified. This is because it gave the Japanese a reason and motivation to surrender and because I think that the fear induced by the bomb may have made Japanese civilians want to en the war, thus pressurising officials into doing so(?).
The Nagasaki bomb, in my view, was unjustified because I feel that only one bomb of such terrible proportions was neede to end the war, where as the second was to me, just a weapons test for the Americans at the expense of innocent life, even more so that the Hiroshima bomb. After Hiroshima, the Americans may have had a little more knowledge of the side effects of the bomb also. I also dont feel as if the Japanese were given sufficient time in which to surrender after "Little Boy" was dropped.
Did that make any sense?

(Original post by IQ Test)
Its a bit too late for me to give a proper answer to this important question, but I think that the Hiroshima bomb ONLY was justified. This is because it gave the Japanese a reason and motivation to surrender and because I think that the fear induced by the bomb may have made Japanese civilians want to en the war, thus pressurising officials into doing so(?).
The Nagasaki bomb, in my view, was unjustified because I feel that only one bomb of such terrible proportions was neede to end the war, where as the second was to me, just a weapons test for the Americans at the expense of innocent life, even more so that the Hiroshima bomb. After Hiroshima, the Americans may have had a little more knowledge of the side effects of the bomb also. I also dont feel as if the Japanese were given sufficient time in which to surrender after "Little Boy" was dropped.
Did that make any sense?

Well, the military ogliarchy were still willing to continue the war after the first bomb. They had 3 days, it's perfectly possible to transmit a surrender in an hour. And I'm sure the Americans knew of the bomb's dangers, except for the radiation, during the testing they did.

(Original post by Fusilero)
Well, the military ogliarchy were still willing to continue the war after the first bomb. They had 3 days, it's perfectly possible to transmit a surrender in an hour. And I'm sure the Americans knew of the bomb's dangers, except for the radiation, during the testing they did.

Yeah fail enough, but I still think only one bomb was enough.
If we look at the casualties and deaths of some major Pacifc battlefields, we'll see that the Japanese were taking far heavier losses than the Americans:

(Original post by graham11238)
How do you think the two compare in terms of "war crimes" obviously the death toll of the holocaust was far greater but does this make it much worse, or conversly Americas bombings more excusable.

Where the German's targeted a specific race and had their motives for the actions, America were far more indiscrimnate unnecessarily targeting a civilian city.

Americans had a motive too. And unlike the Germans (whose motive was simply to kill innocent people), we had a good motive (making Japan surrender).

Are you implying that killing with an indiscriminate weapon is worse than intentionally killing an innocent person???

The bombing was hardly unnecessary. We were at war and Japan was refusing to surrender.

And most importantly, we weren't targeting a "civilian city". Hiroshima was Japan's main military port, and held tens of thousands of soldiers. Nagasaki was an industrial center with huge weapon factories.

(Original post by graham11238)
Also how was it tactical to attack an all civilian city,

How was Hiroshima an all civilian city?

(Original post by graham11238)
i could better understand an attack on a military base, trading port, something which would demonstrate the power as well as cripple army.

Well there you go.

Hiroshima was both a major port and a large military base.

It was more of a military port than a trading port (it was where most of Japan's army was deployed from when they went off to invade their neighbors), but that certainly doesn't diminish its value as a target.

(Original post by graham11238)
Attacking innocent civilians seems a common theme between the holocaust and these bombings regardless of numbers.

In the Holocaust, civilians were the target of the killing.

With the A-bombs, the civilians were not the target.

(Original post by graham11238)
I'm not trying to rank them in order of severity, rather ask why America is allowed to be excused these crimes and those who made and delivered the bombs made out to be heroes. Whereas the germans are repeatedly depicted as evil.

If anyone was excused for their crimes, it was the Japanese.

What Japan did to China, Vietnam, and Korea was worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews.

(Original post by Darkness123)
This is the reason I find it hypocritical when America says some other countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons, America is the only country to use it against another country.

Is it hypocritical for armed police officers to say that convicted felons shouldn't have firearms?

(Original post by Darkness123)
I cannot remember the name of the TV program I watched but what it basically said was that Japan was loosing the war, they were ready to surrender, but America had to use it to show the Russians their power.

Ready to surrender doesn't count. Japan had to actually surrender.

Japan didn't make any surrender offers until the day after Nagasaki.

(Original post by Darkness123)
Even if this was not the case, why use 2 nuclear bombs? I think 1 would've been enough to make the Japanese scared as hell their might be another one.

As it turned out, Japan made no move to surrender after the first A-bomb.

(Original post by Darkness123)
The other thing you lot are forgetting the environmental effects and children being born disabled.

If a fetus was exposed to the pulse of radiation given off by the bomb when it went off, it was likely to be born disabled. However, there weren't any major environmental effects. Hiroshima is a thriving city today, not a toxic wasteland.

Japan was using our goods to commit genocide in China, Vietnam, and Korea.

We stopped selling our goods to Japan because we opposed their genocide and didn't want to be complicit in it.

(Original post by graham11238)
Also the attack on pearl harbour was an attack on a naval base with the sole objective to destroy American Navy.

It was still illegal, both as part of a war of aggression, and as an attack carried out before war was declared.

And Japan also committed horrible atrocities against our POWs.

And hopefully non-Americans count too. What Japan was doing to civilians in neighboring Asian countries was beyond horrific.

(Original post by graham11238)
Do you really think the American's treated japanese prisoners of war well, perhaps you only mention japanese camps because they are more widely shown in films, documentaries etc made by Americans.

America didn't do anything even remotely like the crimes that Japan was committing against both POWs and civilians.

I've visited the Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima, and some of the documents and footage they have suggest the bombings had more sinister motives than merely ending the war. However, I still think the Holocaust was undeniably the most horrific out of the two, if only because more people were killed and there was no justifiable reason for it.

(Original post by Mrm.)
The only surrender that america and the rest of the allies were prepared to accept was unconditional surrender; and that was not going to happen. i.e. no acceptable surrender had been offered.

Actually, no unacceptable surrender had been offered before the bombs either.

It was only the day after Nagasaki that we received a conditional surrender offer from Japan.

(Original post by Mrm.)
Historically it is just as well the surrender did occur after the second device, as the threat of further bombings was in fact hollow at this time.... Only the 2 devices were in fact ready for deployment ....

Yes and no. Since we were dropping them as soon as they were ready to be used, that meant we were always out of stock the moment we used one.

But there were a lot more A-bombs being built (Japan actually missed getting nuked a third time by only a week or so).

Note this document:

"The next bomb of the implosion type had been scheduled to be ready for delivery on the target on the first good weather after 24 August 1945. We have gained 4 days in manufacture and expect to ship from New Mexico on 12 or 13 August the final components. Providing there are no unforeseen difficulties in manufacture, in transportation to the theatre or after arrival in the theatre, the bomb should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August."